Followers

Most Recent Comments:

Previous Visitors:

Friday, April 01, 2011

Still pondering over the recent attempt at debating with paleos, I've decided to hone in on another of their flawed arguments. One guy countered something I said by writing "the trouble with vegans, is they don't think, they believe".. Now putting aside that the guy who wrote this must surely have been thinking none too straight himself, (to the best of my knowledge, thought is a clear necessity for belief), what he really meant to say was that rather than rely on knowledge, we tend more toward belief, trust and faith.

Now.. there's no way that I will be denying this is very much true for myself, I do go very much on belief. Ethics and morality are about belief and opinion.. I acknowledge any views I may have on nutritional science, are purely based on belief and personal experience.

But what I further wish to underline, is that the vast majority of the paleos out there that talk of knowledge, and of concrete fact, are very much themselves in denial of their own beliefs. Knowledge requires first hand experience of something. Thus, if I believe I know something, and tell you it, you will not then also know it.. No matter how much you trust me, there will always be the chance that I myself am either misinformed, not reporting the truth in it's entirety, exaggerating or for whatever reason, outright lieing.

Many Paleos claim to know how paleo man ate. As if they themselves have traveled backward in a time machine, and witnessed first hand. As if they themselves have been studying fossils, been on archeological digs, seen remnants of foods from a time period that they themselves have personally carbon dated to be in the period they believe it to be.

Indeed, I recall some years ago, how a discovery of some cave drawings in South Africa, were tested by a group of scientists.. carbon dating proved the drawings to be older than any other hithertil discovered cave paintings.. In fact so old, that it meant rethinking the whole history of the dawn of humankind. There was much furrour within the scientific community, but as the drawings gained more publicity, a little old lady of some 80 years old odd, stepped forth from the masses, and claimed she herself had drawn the cave paintings as a young girl.. Further investigation proved that this was infact fact.

Despite being widly accepted as fact, evolution theory is itself very much that.. THEORY. There are so many missing links and unanswered questions. I'm not trying to say I'm a creationist, far from it. I sit on the fence as it were, and blatantly claim no knowledge. Sure, I have been known to voice my opinion that the garden of Eden may once have existed, and that fruit was (and still is) our one true fair. But I don't know this is true. For all I know, we may all have been genetically engineered by aliens. Or one person once hypothesized that for all we know, the whole universe could have been created at 2pm in the afternoon on April the 1st 1911.. Stars, planets, life, plants, animals, people with fully formed memories of lives they never had and experiences never experienced.. The whole darned kaboodle. (happy 100 years today!).. Some might even think the universe was sneezed out of the mouth of a giant green dragon, (and wait fearfully for the coming of the great white hanky!).

Some great logical reasoning here.. enjoy!

Sure I'm curious to know the truth of the origins of existance.. but beyond curiousity there is little else. I believe with veganism, it matters not.

But back to the Belief vs Knowledge. Many people claim they know things they really only believe. People quote nutritional science as though it were completely undisputed fact. But the problem with nutritional science, is that it is as yet far from being complete. There are clearly conflicting theories out there, and we're liable to claim the one that suits us best as fact. Which is why I try and steer clear of nutritional science. It being still in it's infancy, it's highly unreliable. And yet the paleos are mostly fully blind to this, to them, it is as if they themselves know.

Sure, they're not the only ones that have a tendency to claim knowledge when it is only belief that is present. Richard, the owner of the blog I gave my tuppence worth on, has agreed to hold a video'ed debate with DurianRider Harley, the Low Fat Raw Vegan. Both are likely equally certain of themselves that they have knowledge and that the other is misguided. Of course, I'm much more inclined toward Harleys general thinking than Richards, but I'll not be kidding anyone in claiming knowledge either way. It'll surely be an interesting debate, though I seriously doubt that either party will be swayed. - The last rumour I heard was that it would take place on the 7th of April, in just 6 days time. I'm sure when and if a date is finally fixed, news will spread rapidly.

To me, the whole vegan issue cannot be debated through incomplete science, or dodgy history, as both sides will purely be expressing their opposing opinions based solely on beliefs. It is purely an ethical issue. It matters not one iota to me if cavemen ate meat, or even if meat eating helped to develop the brain. The issue now, currently, is that we have an awareness of the suffering of others, and should do our best to help minimise or avoid it.

History will always be disputable, so I tend to look to the future and envision a harmonious world, at peace with itself, with a live and let live balance reigning supreme.

35
comments:

With all due respect Mango, I think you should invest more time in studying evolution theory before posting such opinions...

BTW, being long term vegan, I still think there is no definitive prove that eating small amounts of animal products can negatively impact peoples health. My decision is based on my ethics, and I am often stunned that in the "raw world" there are so many people who despise compassion and do not care about influence of their dietary choices on the living world.

hi Lena,why do you think i need to invest more time in studying evolution theory? I've have not said that evolution is not a possibility, merely stated that neither you nor I know whether or not it is fact. For all I know, it may well be. But what does it really matter to me (or you) either way?.. I certainly have no intention of investing time reading up on it.

Yes.. agree about the lack of compassion. I tend to often forget that not everyone who has reached the conclusion of "raw" has done so through a path of moral discernment and veganism.. rather sad that.

@Shelah, Yes.. many people underestimate the power of the heart and are lead astray by false feelingless logic. I believe true logic is compatible with what we feel in our hearts too, and the reason this is not more visible is because people follow false beliefs, cloaked as "knowledge".

@Masood, Well.. I wasn't trying to say that I believe we were genetically engineered.. just that I believe it is a possibility. It wouldn't really explain anything, just open up further questions.. how did the aliens "evolve".. the origins of existence appear perplexingly illogical, and yet, here we are, so something must have happened for us to be here.. Even the jolly green dragon scenario would make us question from whence did the dragon originate? I'm inclined to believe in infinity, no beginning.. no end. but no theory comes any where near to really getting to the crux of the formation of life.

Mango, I would rather say annoyed more than upset. I hate it when people attack what the person has or hasn't read, rather than the argument itself. People who lived in paleolithic times had a lot more knowledge and more useful knowledge than we'll ever have.

A similar thing I saw on IMDB recently was where someone said I needed to watch a movie again because he/she didn't like my opinion. Honestly? I think I would have hit that person if they were here for saying that.

I believe you are mistaken fil. Most people here have a far better grasp of evolutionary theory than the people who wrote that.

They seem to be explaining why it's a "theory" as opposed to a "law". Do you really mean to insinuate that people here don't understand such simple concepts? I suggest you would do a lot better to post it on the so-called "paleo" diet forums instead.

fil, I wish to address your post in one further way. That website is clearly incorrectly saying that evolution is not just a theory, because it is factually a theory.

Mango is correctly calling it a "theory". There is no indication that Mango doesn't understand the word theory, that is something that YOU are projecting onto Mango.

Science calls it a theory, like the theory of graviation. Mango calls it a theory. It's you YOURSELF who are coming in with your ridiculous prejudices and assumptions, trying to second-guess what other people are thinking.

calm down zed.you dont need to attack everyone who post something contrary to your views. i provided a link because of Mangos original post in which he writes"Despite being widly accepted as fact, evolution theory is itself very much that.. THEORY"signalling that his definition of the word theory is a social one, not the scientific definition.this is a problem in any kind of communication between scientists and the rest of us. we speak a different language and its too easy to misunderstand each other.and yes thats exactly what im saying. most people dont understand the scientific meaning of the word theory. do you understand that a theory is more concrete then a law?

Actually Fil, Law is stronger than theory. A law is a fact that proves true every single time and it's usually something that can be tested like the Einstein laws and such. The Evolution theory is considered fact among scientists, but the theory of evolution is always being updated and changed. In addition, people have the right to not believe in it or believe in it. If someone considers it a fact or not, should not matter to you, or else you are just butting in.

i provided a link because of Mangos original post in which he writes: "Despite being widly accepted as fact, evolution theory is itself very much that.. THEORY"signalling that his definition of the word theory is a social one, not the scientific definition.

fil, I don't understand how this in any way signals that his definition is as you put it "a social one". If Mango started talking about the laws of thermodynamics or conservation of energy would you assume he was attaching a legal meaning to it? In this context, Mango is not talking about "theory" in the colloquial sense.

Okay I think I can see where your point is now... you consider that Mango is casting aspersions on its veracity by saying it's "just a theory". The way I read it was as an obvious fact that Mango was just relaying. For example the statement that everyone dies is an obvious fact. On reflection, maybe Mango was using the word theory to express a little doubt over it.

But fil, don't you consider it as dangerous that whenever someone even mentions that something is "a theory" rather than a fact, that they are linked to a 4,000 word essay on why they are incorrect to use that language? Academics use words in all types of ways, which barely make sense in the narrowest of concepts, in order to express themselves or often manipulate people (sometimes it's a totally harmless manipulation, but a manipulation nonetheless). I don't know if you can see my point here.

Certain people seem to get so angry when others question evolution. These people upset me and they are damaging to science. IMO this idea of jamming this stuff down a person's throat every time they even mention the word "theory" is a thinly veiled operation of hatred against people who DARE to question evolution. My second cousin wrote a book called "Kicking the Sacred Cow" (among others), which shows substantial arguments against evolution. I myself do believe evolution to be true, and it's the exact reason why I try to eat as much fruit and have as natural a life as possible!!!

"this is a problem in any kind of communication between scientists and the rest of us. we speak a different language and its too easy to misunderstand each other.and yes thats exactly what im saying. most people dont understand the scientific meaning of the word theory."

"Scientists" and "the rest of us"? Scientists are just ordinary people with a degree and job in science. It's the undereducated and naive people who believe things just because "scientists say" it. Much of the so-called "science" these days goes nowhere, is billions of dollars of waste or just damages the planet and ecosystem. "scientists say" or "doctors say" only tells me that the person saying it has a vested interest in saying it. Or you know how dentists come on an ad on tv to talk about this supposedly exceptional new toothpaste? These people are no more reliable than the people you see on the late-night infomercials giving their "testimonials" about how great the product is. They're heavily paid, ostensibly for their "time".

"do you understand that a theory is more concrete then a law?"

I would say it's like comparing apples and oranges, neither is more "concrete". However you can have extremely flimsy theories that could be overturned overnight, while laws are things that always fulfill the model under the given circumstances... Hooke's Law isn't going anywhere. I can't imagine any circumstance where a law is thrown out like a theory can be, so it is definitely incorrect to state that a theory is actually more concrete. That is just a fabrication by some people who pretend to have scientific and thinking minds when really they do not, and leading like-minded naive people along with them.

It's a preview of the book. I don't know if I will be so bold as to suggest others to look at it also as it is not for me to say what's worth viewing for people, however I *really* like the book and the preview here seems to give a lot.

Evolution theory is theory. I mean "Evolution theory" is theory.. As in the laymans version of theory "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.".. It is based on observation and conjecture. There is no way it can be stated that Evolution theory is any where near as scientifically theory as for example "pythagerus's theory" which has I believe been mathematically proven as fact. It is perhaps a misnomer to call "Evolution Theory" a "theory" in the scientific sense as there are so many unanswered questions, and lacking in concrete supporting evidence. There is evidence of different species existing, and evidence of similarities between them, but to hypothesize that one particular species "became" another, IS conjecture. I'm not trying to say it is a false conjecture. It may be right. I'm debating purely that evolution is NOT proven fact.

Comparing evolution to gravity is also misleading, as gravity is considered a law, with it's accompanying theory which attempts to explain why and how it works the way it does. I understand that there are several forms of evolution (micro, macro as well as divergent, convergent, social etc), some may be indisputable, but I don't believe it can honestly be stated that macro evolution is proven fact. That a species at some point or another has become an altogether different species. Fossil evidence may make it look like that has happened, but each fossilized species discovered is it's own species. How can a species that has wings have evolved from one that didn't? Was it a one generation to the next thing, or did it take 100s of thousands or millions of years, and what use were those useless flightless evolving wings on the intermittent species? Sorry, I just don't buy it.. Believing that life suddenly sparked into existence through random circumstance takes as much faith as a creationist that believes God created us all, or that aliens biosphered our once baron planet. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGAAEFos1hI) ..

Look, evolution may well be true, but I'm entitled to not following any school of thought, entitled to state my opinion and entitled to not really give a damn about theories that don't interest me. and this is all I exercise here. And I'm quite happy and unoffended if others like Lena, or Fil attempt to convince me otherwise.

@Mr. Zed, have you ever asked yourself why you would want to hit someone who thinks your opinion is wrong? Frustration I can understand, but the urge to react physically is something I find puzzling.

Mango, yes I try and ask myself questions about things like this as much as possible. I suspect that was a loaded question, but I'm happy to answer it anyway. I don't know Mango, it's a complicated area. Monkeys hit each other all the time if other people offend them badly, threaten them, etc. so there is nothing unnatural about the reaction. Indeed it would be unnatural to suppress it (which unfortunately we have to do in this day and age).

@Mr.Zed.. Is wasn't meant as a loaded question.. I understand that we have emotions, and I wasn't trying to say we should suppress them.. But I am pretty clueless as to why certain emotions arise at times.. Myself I don't think I've ever felt the slightest like hitting anyone even when debated, opposed, or called an idiot. I've felt the other person has wanted to hit me, and therefore backed off, but the thought never enters my own head to hit someone no matter how disagreeable they are. This is not because I suppress that emotion, it's just not there. I don't know what purpose it can serve, because acting on it will only escalate the issue and lead to madness. Sure monkeys may use that behavior, some humans too, but I don't believe those beings are good role models, or reasons why we might feel the same urges.. Being threatened is another situation entirely, where some physical action might be more justified, but just having a disagreement.. that sure beats me!?

@Mango: Well more than just a disagreement, it was more like a stinging insult and really patronizing. I felt strongly about my opinion, and it just felt very demeaning that it would be dismissed like that.

I think our diverging opinions on this type of issue has come up before. I am always 100% confident in natural solutions and instincts being right, while you are more drawn towards natural peacefullness and serenity.

You mention how hitting can only escalate the situation, however sometimes physical face-offs can diffuse situations, but obviously not using weapons. As amazing as it may seem, other Great Apes also appear not to want to fight dirty even when fighting seriously, when in their own group.

Also, if people are spreading lies and misinformation like the so-called "paleo" proponents are doing, I believe it can help affect and destroy us all. Imagine if thousands or millions try the high-meat diet as a paleo solution instead of fruitarianism.... then they will never gain the benefits from it, and may dismiss natural remedies altogether. They may then eschew the natural world, and not care about the horrors of things such as GM foods. People getting upset with themselves, and fat, and more unhappy and lashing out at the world. I believe that lies and misinformation have an ability to propagate indefinitely like this, and people don't see the full extent that even one lie can cause. A lie or even simple turning of things to a person's favour can cause people to doubt other things a person says.

Okay, a little different turn of conversation here: You know how there's "positive reinforcement" and "negative reinforcement"? Good results and bad results... helping us to learn. You know how we are made up of hormones, nerves, enzymes, etc.... one part of the body can affect the other? Well, what if you extend this to the Human race as being a single entity? One part can set the other right sometimes, and vice versa. There is no selfish, there is no self-gratification... just like how for example a woman might slap her cheating partner which I think is an acceptable form of "violence". Also often people shout at others which is a slight assault on the ear drums... or express their anger... but this does not mean that these expressions are "wrong". And we do a lot of these things naturally.

What has given all aggression and all unagreeableness a bad name is the modern world... drugs (pharmaceutical and street), horrible foods, perhaps overworked people who are told they are living great lives. If someone slapped me, I would wonder why they did it... maybe they were right to do it. I would consider it. Admittedly I do find it hard to imagine myself doing it, maybe I have lost that instinctive reaction in any situation I would face today (also like you I am often afraid of others, I want to communicate to them that their ills are right, but it's not ME that's causing these things... even if they are instinctively ready to lash out because their body is so confused).

Most of the time, when people feel really, really strongly about something... they're right. This is of course a dangerous rule to have... because of lies and manipulation of people who would push things to get their way. I do not understand the original "source" of such lies, almost like the concept of original sin, it could be that language itself is unnatural and doesn't fit with humans but then where did language come from if nature is perfectly balanced.

So to sum up, I would submit that it's NEVER the natural animal/human inclining that's at fault (and I should add that 99.99% of the time primates do not ever get violent anyway, even when faced with such abusive idiots as humans, but when they do it is called for), but rather, if something just is not right, it is because of the modern world.... drugs, processed foods, alcohol providing the most spectacular examples... but lies and misrepresentations of the truth, over-reacting in order to prove a point, exaggerating... those are the true evils in our world.

"Also, if people are spreading lies and misinformation like the so-called "paleo" proponents are doing, I believe it can help affect and destroy us all. Imagine if thousands or millions try the high-meat diet as a paleo solution instead of fruitarianism.... then they will never gain the benefits from it, and may dismiss natural remedies altogether"

mmmmm.. i donno.

from what iv seen, paleo seems to be high fat not high meat, not all the fat comes from meat consumption, a great deal of it comes from oils, not including vegetable oils. paleos also seems to involve a lot more veggy eating then vegetarianism because paleo's get their carbs from veggies only, not grains. there is also a huge move to natural healing as oppose to medication, paleos are also very much against factory farms.

and if the whole world was to go fruitarian, where would we grow all the fruit year round? and how much energy would we have to use to transport these fruits from alternating hemispheres to the rest of the planet?

"and if the whole world was to go fruitarian, where would we grow all the fruit year round? and how much energy would we have to use to transport these fruits from alternating hemispheres to the rest of the planet?"

We wouldn't have to. Fruits do grow all year round, the Mango fruit actually gives fruit all year round. Orangutans have fruit all year round. This idea of fruit being "seasonal" is a myth. In the climate of sub-Saharan Africa, where we evolved first, there was a temperate climate all around. Maybe we could import some fruits sometimes.

The problem of food scarcity comes from the ridiculous and completely unnatural overpopulation of Humans. They use the same argument to try to push the GM foods, saying that we must push them to prevent starvation. The truth is we will NEVER feed the world until overpopulation is under control.

You and I deserve better. We are supposedly so "advanced" now, so why is it that we aren't allowed to eat the foods that our distant ancestors had in abundance?

I don't know where this is all going to end up, but I doubt humans like you and I will be left after this curse of "civilization" has destroyed and mangled what we are now. I believe there will be a lot of pain and suffering before our kind are gone completely. Imagine a baby orangutan looking up at its mother, into her kind eyes. And imagine the mother turning into a disgusting monster and killing the child. This is the sort of thing the modern world does to our kind.... our senses and our instincts are all mocked, manipulated, and abused, and it's getting worse and worse.

Maybe the meat vs fruit example wasn't a great one, since that's still up for debate for a lot of people.

But I am really glad that you are open to discussion on this and think you will have a great future ahead of you in your diet (for a person living in these times). Some of the so-called "paleo" proponents are really close-minded.

thanks, i try to accept all views. the older i get the less i know, as the saying goes.

but fruit is seasonal in many parts of the world. the only place it grows year round is at the equator. the rest of the time it would have to be shipped to feed entire populations, think about the logistics of importing fruit everyday to feed an entire population of a country, or could we use green houses? so thats what im asking. here in canada we would have to get fruit from south america during winter and we would have to ship or truck our fruit down to south america during our summer. thats my point. there would be no locally produced food year round adding to the energy crisis and global warming, if you believe it is caused by us.

"think about the logistics of importing fruit everyday to feed an entire population of a country, or could we use green houses? so thats what im asking. here in canada we would have to get fruit from south america during winter and we would have to ship or truck our fruit down to south america during our summer. thats my point. there would be no locally produced food year round adding to the energy crisis and global warming, if you believe it is caused by us."

Maybe I wasn't too clear in what I said: 1) Fruit in sub-Saharan Africa where Humans evolved grows naturally all year round. 2) Fruit in countries like Canada and Ireland CAN be grown by Humans all year around, by planting and tending to the fruit.

For exotic fruits, maybe we can import some oranges etc. some times. After all, us having no oranges, figs etc. is unnatural also. In my utopia, we would use wind as the source of energy of ships, just like Magellan and Columbus etc. did and did very well with them.

I wouldn't envisage too many problems with using agricultural methods to grow more fruit. Sure it's not ideal but better than the alternatives I would think.

"unless massive depopulation is a part of the fruitarian option."

It definitely would have to be.

You'd be surprised though how much fruit we could grow if we wanted. Sometimes I envy people in so-called "poor" Africa countries, because a lot of the time they have such perfect access to really fresh, raw, organic fruit.

@Mr.Zed,I think our diverging opinions on this type of issue has come up before. I am always 100% confident in natural solutions and instincts being right, while you are more drawn towards natural peacefulness and serenity.

.. Yes, for me, I guess I like to see peacefulness and serenity as natural solutions.

Personally I believe "hits" may only temporary diffuse situations at best. (at least with humans), but in the long term, will only lead to further violence, as they will foster the building of resentment.

That paleos likely spread many untruths, I am aware of, but choose personally to not let that affect me. This world is full of conflicting ideas and opinions, and very much in a state of mental confusion and chaos. I am the eternal optimist and believe that no matter what shit is thrown in the way of it, the truth shall eventually see the light... Besides, there is really no point in me getting worked up about other peoples viewpoints I basically have no control over..

@Fil,and if the whole world was to go fruitarian, where would we grow all the fruit year round? and how much energy would we have to use to transport these fruits from alternating hemispheres to the rest of the planet?

I'm going to mostly agree with Mr.Zed on this one. One thing is certain, that comparing area to area.. square meter to square meter.. Fruit trees produce far more food than any other source of food.. Also, it is the easiest on the earth, not requiring constant ploughing and rotivating which has been proven to slowly deplete top soil and cause desertification. You'll find also that fruit is able to grow far more easily without the intense use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and whatever other "..icides" and chemicals are generally employed by food producers. There's the whole 3 dimensional farming side to it, and the fact that you're planting trees again, instead of chopping them down to grow grain to feed cattle to feed the neanderthals. Extremely inefficient. 6 square meters of land might produce enough wheat after a season to make, I don't know, I'm only guessing, let's say 10 to 20 loaves of bread? that same area growing for example an avocado tree, that can grow up to, again guessing, 20 meters and produce many tonnes of avocados. Maybe my stats are off a little, but you get the general picture.. and the tree is sooo much friendlier on the environment. (note: I'm not even comparing meat which is the most inefficient of all foods grown by humans, requiring often 8 to 10 kgs of feed for each kilogram produced of supposedly edible flesh.. (ooops.. OK.. I just did compare it) ).

I think you also seem to be voicing an assumption that an omnivorous diet can be totally local in todays world of cities of often many millions. So wrong. Sure, a few conscious in that way can clearly source local food produce, but not the masses. The cities will always have large demands requiring transport. I see the drawback of getting fruit transported in, far outweighed by the mere fact of the environmental soundness of effectively reforesting the earth. Besides, if alternative technology is used, like wind as Mr.Zed suggests, or solar.. transport need not be considered the issue that it is today with it's reliance on fossil fuels.

Besides, also, it is highly unrealistic to imagine that the world may suddenly all at once become fruitarian. Such a global shift in consciousness would surely bring with it other solutions.

i fully agree with the first part of your post. we should not be feeding cows grains which kill them within 6 months. they should be eating their natural food, grass, which we dont eat. win win

the meat is then also healthier for us to eat. grass fed cows also consume a lot less water then grain fed cows, and the manure fertilizes soils.

win win win....hmmm.

transportation by wind will take months not days like today. so that's a problem since fruit rots fairly quicklysolar might be an option, but we are from that solution, not to mention distributing solar energy, say in winter, for example, when we have lots of cloud cover in general.

these fruit trees will still need fertilizer from somewhere. i am assuming we would be picking all the fruit thought, and we would not let some go back into the earth. i also dont know how much raw material a tree may need to produce more fruit next year, and since we are taking it away in the form of apples or avocados etc. we would have to put nutrients back into the system at some point.

@Fil, Firstly, feeding cattle grain, does not kill them within 6 months. They may be intentionally slaughtered at that time, but their deaths are not due to their diet!2ndly, you talk about feeding them grass as a win win situation, thus fully ignoring their side of the issue, which admittedly may be somewhat improved, but is still nevertheless ultimately very much a loose loose situation.3rdly, even if they eat grass, fields must intentionally be left treeless in order to feed the cattle.4thly, oh heck, I'll stop counting..

The problem lies very much in supply and demand, and although more traditional farming methods may produce comparatively healthier flesh for consumption, they will never be able to produce enough to supply the demands of a city full of paleos. Sure, I guess that's as unlikely to ever come about as a city full of fruitarians, and the only real solution is to radically reconsider the way we live, and return the bulk of humanity back to more rural settings.

The problem of transporting any goods over long distance in environmentally sound ways is likely much closer to solution than the general public is lead to believe. I have little doubt that the oil cartels are deliberately using their might to suppress innovative alternatives.. The sun may not always shine, but power can be gotten and stored in batteries, we are talking about theoretical futures, and one where the world would turn fruitarian, would surely carry with it efficient viable alternative energy sources!

The needs of a fully established fruit tree are far less than one might imagine, once the tap roots penetrate far enough, they are able to survive many hardships. If enough people are taking care of the fruit trees (rather than letting one team care for 100s of acres, which is often today's practice), and trees are planted in more natural ways (orchards of many tree varieties, rather than just mono crops), then a regular supply of thick mulch easily gotten from cut down weeds, will take care of most of the trees needs. Both feeding the trees, protecting the soil from rapid dehydration, and preventing unwanted grass and weeds from strangling them.. Animal fertilizer is not needed to have healthy trees, and fertilizers in general can be totally avoided in favour of mulch.

As an example, I feel it is very realistic for myself and my partner to live from one acre of land, fully self sufficiently food wise.. And able to take care of each tree individually, that don't grow in rows but are scattered randomly throughout, creating a much more forest like setting... Realistically, how much land do you think a paleo would need?

I admit, I don't have all the solutions, but I see a path, and have every confidence that it is a good and environmentally sound one, and that solutions will be found as and when needed.

@Fil, I forgot to also mention, that although you question the environmental soundness of long distance transport, you appear to put aside the fact that a cooked paleo diet (or any cooked diet).. Requires energy to cook.. energy to clean up after.. possibly harmful chemicals to get off more stubborn grease and such. On a fruitarian diet, we don't even have a functional cooker, or need hot water for washing up as a quick rinse under the tap tends to do the job, so no need for dubious washing up liquids either..

Perhaps I am wrong in assuming you might yourself be paleo.. can you please confirm that bit? ta.. mango.

@fil.. i would have worded things differently. There is clearly a distinction here, between the words do and can.. Sure, I can accept that it happens sometimes. In the vast majority of cases though, they are killed before they die of diet related causes. Unless of course, you could say all their deaths are diet related.. just not particularly to their own individual specific malnutritioned diets, but to the diets of people who mistakenly believe that they must eat meat to survive.

i haven't seen king corn, but I've seen so many movies that depict the lives of factory farmed animals, and have witnessed such first hand, that i feel no desire or need to see further such documentaries.. I am opposed to all forms of animal abuse, both factory and hunting and more. But if you are in to watching movies yourself, I suggest you watch earthlings.. I have it embedded in an interview i did a while ago.. just a sec.. Interview with Stacey Barrington.. it's about 3 quarters of the way through the interview..